Holmes' property acquired for coho production. The Hanson Ponds side channel restoration project was fully implemented, connecting a one-mile side channel to the mainstem Yakima. Over 80 acres of floodplain habitat were reconnected.

2004

Developed and submitted the Yakima Subbasin Plan and Management Plan Supplement.

2003

Protected over 600 acres of prime floodplain or side channel habitat in the Lower Naches and Upper Yakima subbasins.

BPA completed its Environmental Impact Statement for the YKFP in January of 1996. Yakama Nation and WDFW performed necessary analyses for completion of the document.

1995

Development of a Natural Rearing System to Improve Supplemental Fish Quality BP-20651-1; draft EIS documents prepared.

1994

The NPPC recommended that BPA "fund [the] design, construction, operation and maintenance of a hatchery to enhance the fishery for the Yakama Indian Nation as well as other harvesters"; See 1994 Program, Section 7.4K. Interactions studies continue.

1993

Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions Near Proposed Fish Production Sites Associated with the Yakima Fisheries Project BP-00029-1; Yakima River Species Interactions Studies BP-99852-2; Experimental Designs for Testing Differences in Survival BP-00029-3.

Historical id for M&E of Yakima Basin YKFP genetic and species interactions variables.

BPA

199506425

YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical

WDFW policy and technical oversight of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project via the project's Policy Group and Scientific and Technical Advisory Group as dilineated in the agreed-upon project management structure.

BPA

199701325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Pro

This proposal supports O & M of YKFP fish production facilities in the Yakima Subbasin.

BPA

199701335

Klickitat Fishery YKFP O & M

This proposal supports O & M of YKFP fish production facilities in the Klickitat Subbasin.

BPA

199705100

Yakima Basin Side Channels

This project supports the Yakama Nation's activities related to YKFP habitat improvement and acquisition activities in the Yakima Subbasin. The project goal is to protect and restore off-channel rearing habitats in priority mainstem reaches.

BPA

200001700

Recondition Wild Steelhead Kel

Continue to test and evaluate methods to recondition steelhead kelts and/or transport them around hydo system, generate science-based management recommendations, and assist in their implementation to rebuild wild steelhead populations throughout the Columbia Basin. A large part of this work is conducted in the Yakima Subbasin.

BPA

200306200

Eval Repro Success Kelt Steel

This evaluation program is designed to investigate the reproductive success of hatchery-reared, natural-origin, and reconditioned kelt steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss in three different evolutionary significant units (Upper Columbia, Mid Columbia, and Snake River) under natural conditions. The two major goals are 1) directly examine reproductive success in several streams; and, 2) replicate and evaluate kelt reconditioning procedures and protocols at a variety of locations. A large part of this work is conducted in the Yakima Subbasin.

Section 6: Biological Objectives

Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project

Biological Objective

Full Description

Associated Subbasin Plan

Strategy

Page Nos

YKFP Management

YKFP management responsibilities generally include: Project planning activities, including those pertaining to facility construction and modifications; Operation and maintenance activities at all YKFP facilities; Project research activities; Maintenance and enhancement of a centralized database for Project use and dissemination to others; Watershed planning and habitat restoration and protection projects within the target ecosystem; and Dissemination of accumulated project information through the Project Annual Review (PAR) conference, the project web site (ykfp.org), numerous technical reports and publications, and other means.

Prepare documentation in support of ESA/NEPA compliance regarding fisheries monitoring and evaluation activities in consultation and coordination with BPA environmental staff. This work element acknowledges that all activities regarding ESA/NEPA compliance will be coordinated with BPA environmental staff to ensure adequate compliance is in place prior to actions occurring. ESA/NEPA coordination is an on-going activity under this project and this WE documents the contractor's responsibility for supporting BPA's ESA/NEPA compliance for all activities under this contract. (This WE is intended to cover new activities and annual permit reporting requirements - there are a series of existing ESA and NEPA compliance documents in place that cover all current activities under the Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project, of which this project (and this contract) are a part.)

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$ 0

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Increase Instream Habitat Complexity

Thorp Reach Restoration

Conduct Assessments necessary for development of instream, floodplain, sidechannel and riparian restoration

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$1,050,000

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Plant Vegetation

Riparian Habitat Restoration

Riparian restoration, weed control and associated activities at the Fortune, Lanphere, Foster, Harris and Henne Properties

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$90,000

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination

Yakama Nation YKFP Policy Coordination and Analysis

Coordination of YKFP management and policy development with other government agencies and decision-making bodies; including implementation of lead agency responsibilities and cooperative planning and policy development with WDFW, Bonneville, NPCC, NOAA Fisheries, and other federal, state and local government agencies, as well as coordination of lead agency activities with appropriate Tribal officials and personnel when necessary. Yakama Nation YKFP Data Coordination. Yakama Nation YKFP Science Technical Advisory Committee. Yakama Nation YKFP Habitat, Water and Passage Coordination.

Identify and seek funding for habitat, passage and instream flow restoration and protection projects within the Yakima subbasin. Such projects will be coordinated with other pertinent Yakama Nation programs. Projects will be developed pursuant to the NPCC's ongoing planning effort for the Columbia Plateau Province, and will be consistent with the existing subbasin summary and plan for the Yakima subbasin.

The Project Annual Review (PAR) consists of a series of reports documenting the production, monitoring and evaluation objectives and results of the previous years' research projects in the YKFP presented at a conference held annually. PAR records will be made available to regional scientists through the PDM.

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$49,433

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Plan

Maintain Yakama Nation YKFP Information System Management Planning

Maintain an up-to-date Information System Management Plan (ISMP) by identifying the YKFP's near and long term data and information management needs, developing methods to standardize, consolidate, centralize all data and information that is generated by the YKFP, designing a data and information management and transmission system capable of handling the YKFP's existing and future generated data and information, providing for ensuring quality control, standardization, and proper storage procedures for all data and information; modify the ISMP by incorporating changes in overall data management design and strategies based on recommendations and feedback received from peer review and hardware and software requirements.

Provide technical input with respect to anadromous fish, fish screen development, stream flows and related matters for the purpose of coordinating the implementation of Title X1, P.L. 103-434, and the "Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat" project; provide technical reviews of federal, state and local legislation or rules and projects that impact habitat and natural resources in the Yakima subbasin.

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$335,653

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report

Yakama Nation YKFP Project Annual Report

Produce an annual report detailing the accomplishments for each work element of the Management, Data & Habitat Contract

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$177,630

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Status Report

Yakama Nation YKFP Project Status Report

Produce a status report detailing the accomplishments for each work element of the Management, Data & Habitat Contract

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$146,029

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report

Yakama Nation YKFP Produce Scientific Publications

The Project Annual Review (PAR) consists of a series of reports documenting the production, monitoring and evaluation objectives and results of the previous years' research projects in the YKFP presented at a conference held annually. Appropriate scientists from outside the Project are selected and/or employed to participate in a peer review of Project activities that are presented at the PAR. Participants will be requested to submit written comments and observations on the presentations to facilitate research planning for upcoming year. Abstracts and presented data are maintained in the YKFP library.

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$71,762

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report

Yakama Nation YKFP Project Annual Review

The YKFP produces an annual report for YKFP M&E (See Project 1995-063-25). In addition, articles for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals will be produced when appropriate.

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$154,324

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Create/Manage/Maintain Database

Yakama Nation YKFP Data and Information Management

Implement the ISMP by monitoring the data collection systems of the YKFP, supervising the reformatting and inputting of all data into a standardized system, assuring that appropriate hardware and software are used, and providing data and information accessibility to appropriate researchers.

5/1/2007

4/30/2010

$123,460

Biological Objectives

Metrics

No Metrics for this Work Element

Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results

Yakama Nation YKFP Data and Information Dissemination

Make accessible all data and information that is generated by the YKFP, including web page development and management

Comments: ISRP fundable qualified: ISRP recommends that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized program review. Project sponsor should consider focusing the next annual review for this purpose, otherwise review will need to occur as part of the next project review cycle. As Council has asked for in the past, a Master Plan is needed for fall chinook and coho elements of the project. Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented with reduced scope.

NPCC Staff Comments: ISRP fundable qualified: ISRP recommends that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized program review. Project sponsor should consider focusing the next annual review for this purpose, otherwise review will need to occur as part of the next project review cycle. As Council has asked for in the past, a Master Plan is needed for fall chinook and coho elements of the project.

The ISRP rates the set as “Fundable (Qualified)” because we recommend that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized 2-3 day site and program review within the next 2 years.

The general YKFP is a broad subbasin-wide supplementation project coupled with habitat improvements. The supplementation program (199506425 -YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical; 199701325 -YKFP O&M; 199506325 -YKFP M&E; 198812025 -YKFP Management, Data, Habitat) will be aimed at a brief list of primary focal species (e.g., spring/summer Chinook, spring steelhead, etc.) and is intended to be temporary while habitats are improved. Benefits to focal species will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation, habitat, and harvest programs are beneficial to the salmon. Little information (insufficient) is provided as to the impacts or risks to non-target organisms. This will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation impacts non-focal species.

As largely a supplementation and harvest augmentation project, we urge the various cooperating co-managers to work together to provide a compelling logic path or set of evidence that it is justified in terms of benefit to the targeted populations and subbasins. It would be appropriate in a single place to describe the role(s) and activities of the various participants to provide a universal view of YKFP. The primary benefit of the current M&E program will be the examination of ongoing projects. A single robust stock assessment (with trend) would seem a critical element that is missing (or at least not obvious).

We direct sponsors to the ISRP and ISAB report on the need and role for supplementation research, monitoring and evaluation, which concludes with the following statements.

“Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects is critically important. For the monitoring to be effective, a very rigorous design is needed, and the scale and logistics of implementation will carry costs that are significant. The scientific issues underlying the definitions of performance metrics and the necessary controls in the design are genuinely complicated. Some of the scientific tools for measuring performance are new, and involve a level of knowledge of population and molecular genetics which until recently has not been part of the standard fisheries curriculum.

The consequences of not conducting these studies and continuing to assume no deleterious impacts from supplementation, and being wrong, are much greater than short-term changes in salmon abundance. The natural populations that may be lost if supplementation actually decreases their fitness are irreplaceable. On the other hand, if supplementation proves an aid to natural population during distress, further application may be warranted. Both outcomes remain uncertain without adequate monitoring and evaluation, which will likewise guide best management practice and cost effectiveness.” (ISRP & ISAB 2005-15, Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplementation Projects)

We also direct sponsors to the ISAB’s Supplementation Report (ISAB 2003-3) for further presentation on the general absence of supporting data for the approach.

Comments specific to this proposal:

This ongoing project provides primary funds for fishery management of the YKFP including management oversight, policy development, coordination and planning, administration and support, data management, review, and reporting of all aspects of the broader YKFP, especially the habitat improvement or restoration.

While larger than the YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical proposal, many of the work elements are identical or similar. Sponsors need to provide further explanation as to how these proposals and work elements differ or plug in together. The short description of this proposal indicates that it would focus on elements for the YKFP programs and projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: As part of the broader YKFP the Management, Data, Habitat project (MDH), provides for major project management of the other project elements with other activities of the Yakima Nation and external parties. This project also provides primary funding for 8 full time and 10 part time professionals to execute the YKFP.

A key objective of the YKFP is to examine the efficacy of supplementation as an effective management tool in the subbasin (and basin-wide) while habitats are repaired or improved to provide for adequate natural production. This project more specifically focuses on habitat restoration and projects associated with the YKFP. See above general comments.

Relationships to other projects: The project is the MDH component of the broader YKFP. As such YKFP is a large agency size program. Linkages to other YKFP related projects was demonstrated, but there needs to be universal document that ties in all of the current and proposed contracts among the co-managers. There appears on the surface duplication of effort; this could be addressed by such a document and through site and program review.

Project history: The project's history was adequately described. As the specific project's objectives are not directly biological, much of the results or performance metrics are whether or not the YKFP is managed, coordinated, and administered. Biological objectives of the YKFP are more closely examined in context of the M&E project.

Objectives: A series of ten management, coordination, and administration related primary objectives are presented. These objectives are non-biological and aimed at broader program execution. The expected outcomes are clear.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are more related to business and program management as opposed to biological. As such there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program. There is opportunity to explicitly set up hypotheses regarding habitat improvement. Some additional focus on how much actual on the ground habitat work will be completed would be welcomed.

Monitoring and evaluation: As the stated objectives are non-biological for this specific project, M&E are not amenable unless there is some actual habitat work being conducted (which is not obvious). As such, there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This is an ongoing project (with indefinite anticipated time horizon). There are numerous production, rearing, and monitoring facilities associated with the broader YKFP. There are also a goodly number of staff (full-time = 8 or partial time = 10) to be dedicated to the project management including business and administrative staff. It is a little unclear as to who will be doing data work and habitat work. Also, no specific habitat projects are actually described. Again here, a document describing the whole YKFP and a program review would be of great help in determining the appropriateness.

Information transfer: Information transfer needs to occur for biological data (as well as coordination and planning) within the broader YKFP context.

The ISRP rates the set as “Fundable (Qualified)” because we recommend that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized 2-3 day site and program review within the next 2 years.

The general YKFP is a broad subbasin-wide supplementation project coupled with habitat improvements. The supplementation program (199506425 -YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical; 199701325 -YKFP O&M; 199506325 -YKFP M&E; 198812025 -YKFP Management, Data, Habitat) will be aimed at a brief list of primary focal species (e.g., spring/summer Chinook, spring steelhead, etc.) and is intended to be temporary while habitats are improved. Benefits to focal species will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation, habitat, and harvest programs are beneficial to the salmon. Little information (insufficient) is provided as to the impacts or risks to non-target organisms. This will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation impacts non-focal species.

As largely a supplementation and harvest augmentation project, we urge the various cooperating co-managers to work together to provide a compelling logic path or set of evidence that it is justified in terms of benefit to the targeted populations and subbasins. It would be appropriate in a single place to describe the role(s) and activities of the various participants to provide a universal view of YKFP. The primary benefit of the current M&E program will be the examination of ongoing projects. A single robust stock assessment (with trend) would seem a critical element that is missing (or at least not obvious).

We direct sponsors to the ISRP and ISAB report on the need and role for supplementation research, monitoring and evaluation, which concludes with the following statements.

“Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects is critically important. For the monitoring to be effective, a very rigorous design is needed, and the scale and logistics of implementation will carry costs that are significant. The scientific issues underlying the definitions of performance metrics and the necessary controls in the design are genuinely complicated. Some of the scientific tools for measuring performance are new, and involve a level of knowledge of population and molecular genetics which until recently has not been part of the standard fisheries curriculum.

The consequences of not conducting these studies and continuing to assume no deleterious impacts from supplementation, and being wrong, are much greater than short-term changes in salmon abundance. The natural populations that may be lost if supplementation actually decreases their fitness are irreplaceable. On the other hand, if supplementation proves an aid to natural population during distress, further application may be warranted. Both outcomes remain uncertain without adequate monitoring and evaluation, which will likewise guide best management practice and cost effectiveness.” (ISRP & ISAB 2005-15, Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplementation Projects)

We also direct sponsors to the ISAB’s Supplementation Report (ISAB 2003-3) for further presentation on the general absence of supporting data for the approach.

Comments specific to this proposal:

This ongoing project provides primary funds for fishery management of the YKFP including management oversight, policy development, coordination and planning, administration and support, data management, review, and reporting of all aspects of the broader YKFP, especially the habitat improvement or restoration.

While larger than the YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical proposal, many of the work elements are identical or similar. Sponsors need to provide further explanation as to how these proposals and work elements differ or plug in together. The short description of this proposal indicates that it would focus on elements for the YKFP programs and projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: As part of the broader YKFP the Management, Data, Habitat project (MDH), provides for major project management of the other project elements with other activities of the Yakima Nation and external parties. This project also provides primary funding for 8 full time and 10 part time professionals to execute the YKFP.

A key objective of the YKFP is to examine the efficacy of supplementation as an effective management tool in the subbasin (and basin-wide) while habitats are repaired or improved to provide for adequate natural production. This project more specifically focuses on habitat restoration and projects associated with the YKFP. See above general comments.

Relationships to other projects: The project is the MDH component of the broader YKFP. As such YKFP is a large agency size program. Linkages to other YKFP related projects was demonstrated, but there needs to be universal document that ties in all of the current and proposed contracts among the co-managers. There appears on the surface duplication of effort; this could be addressed by such a document and through site and program review.

Project history: The project's history was adequately described. As the specific project's objectives are not directly biological, much of the results or performance metrics are whether or not the YKFP is managed, coordinated, and administered. Biological objectives of the YKFP are more closely examined in context of the M&E project.

Objectives: A series of ten management, coordination, and administration related primary objectives are presented. These objectives are non-biological and aimed at broader program execution. The expected outcomes are clear.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are more related to business and program management as opposed to biological. As such there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program. There is opportunity to explicitly set up hypotheses regarding habitat improvement. Some additional focus on how much actual on the ground habitat work will be completed would be welcomed.

Monitoring and evaluation: As the stated objectives are non-biological for this specific project, M&E are not amenable unless there is some actual habitat work being conducted (which is not obvious). As such, there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This is an ongoing project (with indefinite anticipated time horizon). There are numerous production, rearing, and monitoring facilities associated with the broader YKFP. There are also a goodly number of staff (full-time = 8 or partial time = 10) to be dedicated to the project management including business and administrative staff. It is a little unclear as to who will be doing data work and habitat work. Also, no specific habitat projects are actually described. Again here, a document describing the whole YKFP and a program review would be of great help in determining the appropriateness.

Information transfer: Information transfer needs to occur for biological data (as well as coordination and planning) within the broader YKFP context.